Economy

Tourism revenues are expected to reach between $10 billion and $12 billion by then, despite the Ukrainian crisis, he added. Egypt’s fiscal year runs from July 1 to June 30.The canal is the fastest shipping route between Europe and Asia and one of the Egyptian government’s main sources of foreign currency. More

KÖNIGSWINTER, Germany — The Group of 7 economic powers agreed on Friday to provide nearly $20 billion to support Ukraine’s economy over the coming months to help keep the country’s government running while it fights to repel a Russian invasion.In a joint statement after two days of meetings, finance ministers from the Group of 7 affirmed their commitment to help Ukraine with a mix of grants and loans. Ukraine needs approximately $5 billion per month to maintain basic government services, according to the International Monetary Fund.The $19.8 billion of financing was agreed on after the United States, which is contributing more than $9 billion in short-term financing, pressed its allies to do more to help secure Ukraine’s future. The statement did not break down how much the other Group of 7 nations will contribute.The European Commission, however, previously agreed to provide up to 9 billion euros of financial assistance. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the International Finance Corporation plan to provide an additional $3.4 billion to Ukrainian state-owned enterprises and the private sector.“We will continue to stand by Ukraine throughout this war and beyond and are prepared to do more as needed,” the statement said.The economic policymakers also acknowledged that more fallout from the war lies ahead, and they pledged on Friday to keep markets open as they combat rising food and energy prices around the world. They also said that their central banks would be closely monitoring inflation measures and the impact that rising prices are having on their economies.“We are very concerned about crises and macroeconomic developments,” Christian Lindner, Germany’s finance minister, said during a closing news conference on Friday, according to an English translation.The two-day summit on the outskirts of Bonn came at a pivotal time for the world economy, with concern mounting that a combination of war, supply chain problems and the lingering effects of the pandemic could lead to a contraction in global output. Finance ministers discussed ways to keep pressure on Russia while minimizing the damage to their economies as they debated the merits of a European embargo on Russian oil and whether seized Russian assets could be used to pay for Ukraine’s reconstruction.“The values of the international community have been totally discarded by Russia,” Mr. Lindner said.Officials from the world’s leading advanced economies discussed other areas for possible collaboration, such as combating climate change and making progress on a global tax agreement that was reached last year but faces implementation problems.But the complicated mix of foreign policy challenges and economic headwinds dominated the meetings.Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen warned this week that Europe could be vulnerable to a recession because of its exposure to Russian energy. She does not expect a recession in the United States but said on Thursday that a “soft landing” was not guaranteed as the Federal Reserve raises interest rates to tame inflation.“I think it’s conceivable there could be a soft landing, that requires both skill and luck,” Ms. Yellen told reporters on the sidelines of the Group of 7 summit. “It’s a very difficult economic situation.” More

With just a handful of companies making U.S. infant formula, a shutdown of Abbott’s plant had outsized impact on the supply.In the early 1990s, the nation’s biggest makers of baby formula were under fire.The three largest manufacturers, which controlled 90 percent of the U.S. market at the time, were hit with waves of state, federal and corporate lawsuits, accusing them of attempting to limit competition and using their control of the industry to fix prices. Most of the lawsuits were settled or, in some cases, won by the companies.Three decades later, the $2.1 billion industry is still controlled by a small number of manufacturers, who are again in the cross hairs over their outsized market share.The infant formula market was plunged into disarray when Abbott Laboratories voluntarily recalled some of its most popular powdered formulas in February and shut down its plant in Sturgis, Mich., after four babies who had consumed some of Abbott’s products became sick with bacterial infections.Abbott, which controls 48 percent of the market, has said there was no evidence its formula caused any known infant illnesses and that none of the tests performed by regulators have directly linked the cans of formula the babies consumed to the strains of bacteria, Cronobacter sakazakii, found at the plant.But the ripple effects from that single plant closing have been widespread, highlighting the market power of a single manufacturer and the lack of meaningful competition in an industry governed by rules and regulations designed to protect the incumbents.Stores are limiting purchases of baby formula, with shelves in many markets completely bare. Panicked parents of newborns are calling on friends and family to help locate food for their babies, with some resorting to making their own formula at home. And while the Abbott plant was given the green light this week to start manufacturing again — a move that will still take weeks to rebuild inventory on store shelves — there are growing calls from lawmakers for major changes to how the industry operates.“When something goes wrong, like it has here, you then have a major, serious crisis,” said Representative Rosa DeLauro, a Connecticut Democrat who released a scathing 34-page whistleblower report from a former Abbott employee detailing safety and cleanliness issues at the Sturgis plant. She argued that the industry should be broken up and efforts should be made to promote competition to avoid future shortages.Senator Tammy Duckworth, an Illinois Democrat, urged the Federal Trade Commission last week to conduct a broad study of the infant formula industry and whether market consolidation has led to the dire shortages. Top Biden administration officials have also lamented the power of a few players. On Sunday, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said the Biden administration should do more to address the industry’s “enormous market concentration.”“We’ve got four companies making about 90 percent of the formula in this country, which we should probably take a look at,” Mr. Buttigieg said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”Read More on the Baby Formula Shortage A Desperate Search: As the United States faces a baby formula shortage, some parents are rationing supplies, or driving for hours in search of them. A Misleading Narrative: Amid the crisis, Republicans have suggested that the Biden administration is sending baby formula to immigrants at the expense of American families. An Emotional Toll: The shortage is forcing many new mothers to push themselves harder to breastfeed and look for ways to start again after having stopped. What Not to Do: As they struggle to cope, some parents have resorted to strategies like watering down their formula. But there are risks.Today, Abbott is the biggest player. Mead Johnson, which is owned by the conglomerate Reckitt Benckiser, and Perrigo, which makes generic formula for retailers, control another 31 percent. Nestlé controls less than 8 percent.In part, the lack of competition stems from simple math: Few companies or investors are eager to jump into the infant formula industry because its growth is tied to the nation’s birth rate, which held steady for decades until it began dropping in 2007.But the factors that long ago led to the creation of an industry controlled by a handful of manufacturers are primarily rooted in a tangled web of trade rules and regulations that have protected the biggest producers and made it challenging for others to enter the market.The United States, which produces 98 percent of formula consumed in the country, has strict regulations and tariffs as high as 17.5 percent on foreign formula. The Food and Drug Administration maintains a “red list” of international formulas, including several European brands that, if imported, are detained because they do not meet U.S. requirements. Those shortcomings could include labels that are not written in English or do not have all of the required nutrients listed. This week, the F.D.A. said it would relax some regulations to allow for more imports into the United States.Trade rules contained in the United States Mexico Canada Agreement, which replaced the North American Free Trade Agreement, also significantly discourage Canadian companies from exporting infant formula to the United States. The pact established low quotas that trigger export charges if exceeded. American dairy lobbying groups had urged officials to swiftly pass the agreement and supported the quotas at the time.But perhaps the biggest barrier to new entrants is the structure of a program that aims to help low-income families obtain formula. The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, better known as WIC, is a federally funded program that provides grants to states to ensure that low-income pregnant or postpartum women and their children have access to food.The program, which is administered by state agencies, purchases more than half of all infant formula supply in the United States, with about 1.2 million infants receiving formula through WIC.State WIC agencies cannot just buy formula from any manufacturer. They are required by law to competitively bid for contracts and select one company, which becomes the exclusive provider of formula for all WIC recipients in the state. In exchange for those exclusive rights, manufacturers must provide states significant discounts for the formula they purchase.David E. Davis, an economics professor at South Dakota State University, said that exclusive system could make it more difficult for smaller companies to break through. Although manufacturers may sell products to states below cost, Dr. Davis’s research found that brands that secure WIC contracts gain greater prominence on store shelves, creating a spillover effect and resulting in larger sales among families that are not WIC recipients. Doctors may also preferentially recommend those brands to mothers, his research found.The formula shortage is causing retailers to limit purchases, with shelves in many markets completely bare.Kaylee Greenlee Beal for The New York Times“If you don’t have the WIC contract, you’re pretty much a small player,” Dr. Davis said. “Because that locks you out of the WIC market and it pretty much locks you out of the non-WIC market. So firms bid very aggressively to get the WIC contract.”Only three companies have contracts to supply formula through the program: Abbott makes up the largest share, providing formula to about 47 percent of infants that receive WIC benefits, while Mead Johnson provides 40 percent and Gerber, which is manufactured by Nestlé, provides 12 percent, according to the National WIC Association.Navigating the Baby Formula Shortage in the U.S.Card 1 of 6A growing problem. More

The president plans to unveil a new regional economic framework, but some in the region wonder whether it will be an empty exercise.PYEONGTAEK, South Korea — When President Biden arrived on his inaugural mission to Asia on Friday, the first place he headed from the airplane was not a government hall or embassy or even a military base, but a sprawling superconductor factory that represented the real battleground of a 21st-century struggle for influence in the region.The choice of destination to begin a five-day trip to South Korea and Japan underscored the challenges of Mr. Biden’s effort to rebuild American ties to a region where longtime allies have grown uncertain about Washington’s commitments amid anti-trade sentiment at home, while China has expanded its dominance in the economic arena.The president hopes to lure countries back into the American orbit despite his predecessor Donald J. Trump’s decision five years ago to abandon a far-reaching trade pact known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership — but not by rejoining the economic bloc, even though it was negotiated by the Obama administration that he served as vice president. Instead, under pressure from his liberal base at home, Mr. Biden plans to offer a far less sweeping multinational economic structure that has some in the region skeptical about what it will add up to.Mr. Biden will formally unveil the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework on Monday in Tokyo, bringing together many of the same countries from the trade partnership to coordinate policies on energy, supply chains and other issues, but without the market access or tariff reductions that powered the original partnership. Eager for American leadership to counter China, a number of countries in the region plan to sign up and hail the new alignment but privately have expressed concern that it may be an empty exercise.The framework is essentially “a new packaging of existing Biden administration priorities in this economic policy area,” said Scott A. Snyder, the director of U.S.-Korea policy at the Council on Foreign Relations. “And whether or not it really takes off depends on whether partners believe that there’s enough there there to justify being engaged.”Mr. Snyder added that he thought South Korea, for one, was taking seriously the Biden administration’s commitment to invest in the region. “I think they’re believing,” he said. “And we’ll see whether they’re whistling past the graveyard.”But even Mr. Biden’s own ambassador to Japan, Rahm Emanuel, acknowledged the uncertainty in the region over the new economic framework. Countries want to know, “what is it we are signing up for?” he told reporters in Tokyo on Thursday. Is this an alternative to the Trans-Pacific Partnership? “Yes and no,” he said.Understand the Supply Chain CrisisThe Origins of the Crisis: The pandemic created worldwide economic turmoil. We broke down how it happened.Explaining the Shortages: Why is this happening? When will it end? Here are some answers to your questions.A New Normal?: The chaos at ports, warehouses and retailers will probably persist through 2022, and perhaps even longer.A Key Factor in Inflation: In the U.S., inflation is hitting its highest level in decades. Supply chain issues play a big role.The framework is not a traditional free trade agreement but instead an architecture for negotiation to address four major areas: supply chains, the digital economy, clean energy transformation and investments in infrastructure. Jake Sullivan, the president’s national security adviser, said it would be “a big deal” and a “significant milestone” for relations with the region.“When you hear some of the, ‘Well, we don’t quite know. We’re not sure because it doesn’t look like things have looked before,’ I say, ‘Just you wait,’” he told reporters on Air Force One as it made its way across the Pacific. “Because I think this is going to be the new model of economic arrangement that will set the terms and rules of the road for trade and technology and supply chains for the 21st century.”Mr. Sullivan said there will be “a significant roster of countries” joining the framework when Mr. Biden kicks it off on Monday, but administration officials have not identified which countries. Japan, which has signaled that it would rather the United States rejoin the Trans-Pacific Partnership, will nonetheless embrace the new framework as the best it can get at the moment, as will South Korea. Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines have indicated interest in joining, while India and Indonesia have expressed some reservations.Prime Minister Pham Minh Chinh of Vietnam said this month that it was still not clear what the new framework would mean in concrete terms. “We are ready to work alongside the U.S. to discuss, to further clarify what these pillars entail,” he said at a forum held by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.The Financial Times reported that the administration had diluted the language of the organizing statement to entice more countries to join. Some countries are concerned that the United States will force labor and environmental standards on them without the trade-offs of better trading terms, which are off the table because of liberal opposition within Mr. Biden’s party.“There’s a reason that the original T.P.P. was derailed,” Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, said at a hearing last month. “It would have off-shored more jobs to countries that use child labor and prison labor and pay workers almost nothing. Let me be clear: The I.P.E.F. cannot be T.P.P. 2.0.”Mr. Emanuel said the administration would describe the new framework process as a “consultation to negotiation,” as he put it. “We have to have an approach that respects countries where they are,” he said. “Meaning where Japan is or where Australia is, is not necessarily where Vietnam or Thailand or the Philippines are.”Moreover, he said, the administration wanted a framework that could survive beyond Mr. Biden’s presidency, unlike the Trans-Pacific Partnership. “We have an interest in saying we are still a player in the Pacific, and China has an interest in saying the U.S. is on its way out,” Mr. Emanuel said.Mr. Biden’s visit to the Samsung semiconductor facility immediately after disembarking from Air Force One served as a reminder of how critical the region is to his immediate priority of unsnarling the supply chain problems that have hurt American consumers back home.Shortly after landing at Osan Air Base, Mr. Biden joined President Yoon Suk-yeol of South Korea at the plant, praising it as a model for the type of manufacturing that the United States desperately needs to head off soaring inflation and to compete with China’s growing economic dominance.“This is an auspicious start to my visit, because it’s emblematic of the future cooperation and innovation that our nations can and must build together,” Mr. Biden said, noting that Samsung will invest $17 billion to build a similar plant in Taylor, Texas.“Our two nations work together to make the best, most advanced technology in the world,” Mr. Biden added, surrounded by monitors showing Samsung employees listening to his remarks. “And this factory is proof of that, and that gives both the Republic of Korea and the United States a competitive edge in the global economy if we can keep our supply chains resilient, reliable and secure.”Employees at the Samsung plant. Mr. Biden’s commerce secretary warned this year that the United States was facing an “alarming” shortage of semiconductors.Doug Mills/The New York TimesWhile demand for products containing semiconductors increased by 17 percent from 2019 to 2021, there has not been a comparable increase in supply, partly because of pandemic-related disruptions. As a result, automobile prices have skyrocketed and the need for more chips is likely to increase as 5G technology and electric vehicles become more widespread.The United States already faces an “alarming” shortage of the semiconductors, Gina Raimondo, Mr. Biden’s commerce secretary, warned this year, adding that the crisis had contributed to the highest level of inflation in roughly 40 years.How the Supply Chain Crisis UnfoldedCard 1 of 9The pandemic sparked the problem. More

“While Ukraine is benefiting from large commitments of international financial support, helping to mitigate immediate liquidity risks, the resulting significant rise in government debt is likely to prove unsustainable over the medium term,” the ratings agency said.The agency, which earlier kept the country’s outlook under review, revised it due to uncertainty around the evolution of the war and credit implications associated with it.The Group of Seven’s financial leaders agreed on $9.5 billion in new aid to Ukraine on Friday and promised enough money to keep the country’s devastated economy afloat as long as it fights against Russia’s invasion.Moody’s said it expects the military conflict in Ukraine to be more prolonged than initially assumed and forecasts the country’s real gross domestic product (GDP) to shrink by about 35% in 2022.The agency expects the Ukrainian economy to start a recovery from 2023, but expects Russia’s invasion to cause a permanent damage to the country’s GDP. More

NEW YORK (Reuters) – The stock market’s brutal year neared a grim milestone as the S&P 500’s slide on Friday threatened to leave it in a bear market for the first time since March 2020, fueled by worries over sky high inflation, a hawkish Federal Reserve and future economic growth.The benchmark S&P 500 index fell below 3837.248 during Friday’s session, a decline that on an intraday basis put it more than 20% below its Jan. 3 record closing high. However, the index closed above that level, and did not confirm it was in a bear market – frequently defined as a drop of at least 20% from a closing high.If history is any guide, a bear market would mean more pain could be in store for investors. The S&P 500 has fallen by an average of 32.7% in 13 bear markets since 1946, including a nearly 57% drop during the 2007-2009 bear market during the financial crisis, according to Sam Stovall, chief investment strategist at CFRA.It has taken a little over a year on average for the index to reach its bottom during bear markets, and then roughly another two years to return to its prior high, according to CFRA. Of the 13 bear markets since 1946, the return to breakeven levels has varied, taking as little as three months to as long as 69 months. Graphic: S&P 500 bear markets since 1946 – https://graphics.reuters.com/USA-STOCKS/BEAR/zjvqkmznwvx/chart.png The S&P 500 surged some 114% from its March 2020 low as stocks benefited from emergency policies put in place to help stabilize the economy in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. That decline went into reverse at the start of 2022 as the Fed grew far more hawkish and signaled it would tighten monetary policy at a faster-than-expected clip to fight surging inflation. It has already raised rates by 75 basis points this year and expectations of more hikes ahead have weighed on stocks and bonds. Fed Chairman Jerome Powell has vowed to raise rates as high as needed to kill inflation but also believes policymakers can guide the economy to a so-called soft landing.Adding to the volatility has been the war in Ukraine, which has caused a further spike in oil and other commodity prices. Graphic: S&P 500 timeline in 2022 – https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/mkt/jnvwezxjgvw/Pasted%20image%201653063479826.png A few areas of the stock market have been spared. Energy shares have soared this year, along with oil prices, while defensive groups such as utilities have held up better than broader markets. Graphic: S&P 500 sectors since all-time high – https://graphics.reuters.com/USA-STOCKS/BEAR/znpnemwbdvl/chart.png On the flip side, shares of technology and other high-growth companies have been hit hard. Those stocks — high fliers during much of the bull market over the past decade — are particularly sensitive to higher yields, which dull the allure of companies whose cash flows are weighted more in the future and diminished when discounted at higher rates.Some of the biggest of these companies, such as Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) and Facebook (NASDAQ:FB) owner Meta Platforms, are also heavily weighted in the S&P 500 index. Graphic: Casualties in 2022 stock market – https://graphics.reuters.com/USA-STOCKS/BEAR/egpbkwajjvq/chart.png Investors have looked at various metrics to determine when markets will turn higher, including the Cboe Volatility Index, also known as Wall Street’s fear gauge. While the index is elevated compared to its long-term median, it is still below levels reached in previous major selloffs. Graphic: VIX and bear markets – https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/mkt/xmpjoxrbyvr/Pasted%20image%201653068998738.png More

Flush with cash, Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft and Google are positioned to emerge from a downturn stronger and more powerful. As usual.SAN FRANCISCO — Apple, Amazon, Microsoft and the parent companies of Facebook and Google have lost $2.7 trillion in value so far this year, about the annual gross domestic product of Britain.So what have the companies done about this thrashing on Wall Street? Microsoft has doubled its employees’ bonus pool, Google has committed to hiring more engineers, and Apple has showered its top hardware talent with $200,000 bonuses.The dissonance between the stock market’s relative panic and the business-as-usual calm among tech giants foreshadows a period when analysts, investors and economists predict that the world’s largest companies will widen their lead in their respective markets.The bullishness about their prospects reflects an understanding that the companies have tight control of some of the world’s most lucrative businesses: social media, premium smartphones, e-commerce, cloud computing and search. Their dominance in those arenas and toeholds in other businesses should blunt the pains of inflation, even as those challenges hammer big companies such as Walmart and Target and the stock market nears bear market territory.The S&P 500 spent much of Friday below the threshold for what is considered a bear market — commonly defined as 20 percent below its last peak — before rallying late in the afternoon. The index ended the week with a loss of 3 percent, its seventh straight weekly decline. That’s its longest stretch of losses since 2001.In the months ahead, Microsoft, Google, Apple and Amazon are expected to boost hiring, buy more businesses and emerge on the other side of a bearish economy stronger and more powerful — even if they shed some of their total valuation and their relentless growth of the last few years.“Big tech can say, ‘Forget the economy,’” said Richard Kramer, founder of the London-based advisory firm Arete Research. Flush with cash, he said, “they can invest through the cycle.”Read More About Apple‘After Steve’: Jony Ive, who helped define Apple’s iconic look, left as the Tim Cook era took hold. A new book details how they and the company changed following Steve Jobs’s death.A $3 Trillion Company: Four decades after going public, Apple reached a $1 trillion market value in 2018. Now, the company is worth triple that.Trademarks: The tech behemoth has opposed singer-songwriters, school districts and food blogs for trying to trademark names or logos featuring an apple — and even other fruits.AirTags: Privacy groups said that Apple’s new coin-size devices could be used to track people. Those warnings appear to have been prescient.The large companies’ plans contrast sharply with a wave of spending cuts crashing through the rest of the tech sector. Steep declines in share prices at unprofitable companies such as Uber, down 45 percent, and Peloton, down 58 percent, have led their chief executives to cut jobs or consider layoffs. Start-ups are pruning their workforces as venture capital funding slows.Those companies’ plummeting values will create buying opportunities, said Toni Sacconaghi, a tech analyst at Bernstein, a research firm. Large deals may be difficult because the Federal Trade Commission is scrutinizing takeover moves by Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft and Google, he said, but smaller deals for emerging technology or engineers could be rampant.As people return to work and travel, they are making fewer Amazon purchases, leaving the company with more space and staff than it needs.Roger Kisby for The New York TimesDuring the Great Recession, Facebook, Amazon, Google, Apple and Microsoft acquired more than 100 companies from 2008 to 2010, according to Refinitiv, a financial data company. Some of those deals have become fundamental to their businesses today, including Apple’s acquisition of the chip company P.A. Semi, which contributed to the company’s development of its new laptop processors, and Google’s acquisition of AdMob, which helped create a mobile advertising business.“The big will get bigger and the poor will get poorer,” said Michael Cusumano, deputy dean of the Sloan School of Management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “That’s the way network effects work.”There are caveats to this sense of invulnerability. The big companies’ plans could always change if the economy continues to deteriorate and consumers pull back even further on their spending. And some of the big companies are more vulnerable than others.Meta Platforms, Facebook’s parent company, has fared worse than its peers because its business is facing long-term challenges. It has posted falling profits as its user growth slows amid rising competition from TikTok, and changes in Apple’s privacy policy stymie its ability to personalize ads.Mark Zuckerberg, Meta’s chief executive, has responded by instituting a temporary hiring freeze for some roles. During a recent all-hands meeting with staff, employees asked if layoffs would follow. Mr. Zuckerberg said that job cuts weren’t in the company’s current plans and were unlikely in the future, according to a spokesman. Instead, he said the company was focused on slowing spending and limiting its growth.Amazon sent a similar signal to its employees last month after it posted disappointing results. In a call with analysts, Brian Olsavsky, the company’s finance chief, said Amazon would look to corral costs after it doubled spending on warehouses and staff to keep pace with pandemic orders. As people return to work and travel, they are making fewer Amazon purchases, leaving the company with more space and staff than it needs.But Amazon’s lucrative cloud business, Amazon Web Services, or A.W.S. for short, continues to gush profits. The company plans to lean into its success in the months ahead by increasing its spending on data centers. It also has committed to raising the cap on base compensation of its corporate staff to $350,000, from $160,000. And it is investing in a plan to build a network of satellites to deliver high-speed internet by launching 38 rockets into space.Between them, Facebook, Microsoft, Google, Apple and Amazon had nearly $300 billion in cash, excluding debt, at the end of March, according to Loup Ventures, an investment firm specializing in tech research.The cash reserves could fund accelerated stock buybacks as share prices fall, analysts say. Doing so would increase the companies’ earnings per share, deliver more value to investors and signal to the market that their firms are more valuable than Wall Street is willing to acknowledge.The companies roared ahead during the pandemic as people sequestered at home immersed themselves in a digital world. Customer orders soared on Amazon, for everything from hand sanitizer to Instant Pots. Shuttered stores shifted sales online and ramped up Google and Facebook advertising. Remote students and employees splurged on new iPhones, iPads and Macs.The last tech giant to cull its ranks during a major downturn, Microsoft, is doing the opposite during this turbulent period. Emboldened by a business that has proved more durable than its peers, Microsoft is sweetening salaries, boosting its investments in cloud computing and standing by a $70 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard that it expects to unlock more sales for its gaming empire.A Call of Duty event in Minneapolis in 2020. Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision Blizzard is expected to unlock more sales for its gaming empire.Bruce Kluckhohn/USA Today Sports, via ReutersSimilar resilience has been on display at Google and Apple. Google, a subsidiary of Alphabet, recently overhauled its performance review process and told staff that they would likely get pay increases, according to CNBC. It also plans to increase its spending on data centers to support its growing cloud business.Tim Cook, Apple’s chief executive, has a longstanding philosophy that Apple should continue to invest for the future amid a downturn. It more than doubled its staff during the Great Recession and nearly tripled its sales. Lately, it has increased bonuses to some hardware engineers by as much as $200,000, according to Bloomberg.John Chambers, who steered Cisco Systems through multiple downturns as its former chief executive, said the companies’ strong businesses and deep pockets could afford them the chance to take risks that would be impractical for smaller competitors. During the 2008 downturn, he said Cisco allowed distressed automakers to pay for technology services with credit at a time when competitors demanded cash. The company risked having to write down $1 billion in inventory, but emerged from the recession as the dominant provider to a healthy auto industry, he said.“Companies break away during downturns,” Mr. Chambers said.Excelling will require disregarding the broader market’s gloom, said David Yoffie, a professor at Harvard Business School. He said previous downturns had shown that even the strongest businesses were susceptible to profit pressures and prone to pulling back. “Firms get pessimistic like everyone else,” he said.The first test for the biggest companies in tech will be contagion from their peers. Amazon’s shares in the electric vehicle maker Rivian Automotive have plunged more than 65 percent, a $7.6 billion paper loss. Apple’s services sales are likely to be crimped by a slowdown in advertising by app developers, which rely on venture-capital funding to finance their marketing, analysts say. And start-ups are scrutinizing their spending on cloud services, which will likely slow growth for Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud, analysts and cloud executives said.“People are trying to figure out how to spend smartly,” said Sam Ramji, the chief strategy officer at DataStax, a data management company.Regulatory challenges on the horizon could darken the big tech companies’ prospects, as well. Europe’s Digital Markets Act, which is expected to become law soon, is designed to increase the openness of tech platforms. Among other things, it could scuttle the estimated $19 billion that Apple collects from Alphabet to make Google the default search engine on iPhones, a change that Bernstein estimates could erase as much as 3 percent of Apple’s pretax profit.But the companies are expected to challenge the law in court, potentially tying up the legislation for years. The probability it gets bogged down leaves analysts sticking to their consensus: “Big Tech is going to be more powerful. And what’s being done about it? Nothing,” Mr. Kramer of Arete Research said.Jason Karaian contributed reporting. More

“No matter what you may be selling, your business in China should be enormous, if the Chinese who should buy your goods would only do so.” Never did an “if only” clause carry more weight. In the 85 years since Carl Crow, a Shanghai-based American advertising executive, wrote these words in his book Four Hundred Million Customers, China’s population has grown by 1bn people. Their combined spending power is now second only to that of Americans.Yet the gulf between promise and reality in China’s fabled market haunts foreign corporations as much today as when Crow was trying to market American lipstick and French brandy to the emerging middle class of the 1930s. A host of political and regulatory issues — exacerbated by Xi Jinping’s strict Covid policies and his stance over Russia’s war in Ukraine — are conspiring to eviscerate the dreams of many multinationals.The result is that direct investment into China by foreign companies is falling off a cliff. Joerg Wuttke, president of the EU Chamber of Commerce in Beijing, says the unpredictability is prompting the European business community to put investments into China “on hold”. “Many of our members are now taking a wait-and-see approach to investments in China,” he adds, citing an attitudes survey this month of the chamber’s 1,800 members. “Twenty-three per cent of our members are now considering shifting current or planned investments out of China, the highest level on record. And 77 per cent report that China’s attractiveness as a future investment destination has decreased.”Pessimism has infected the US business community, too. Michael Hart, president of the American Chamber of Commerce in China, warns that the travel hassles encountered by foreign executives seeking to visit their Chinese operations — including flight cancellations, visa complications and lengthy quarantines on arrival — will lead to a “massive decline” in investment “two, three, four years from now”.The despair and anguish of expat families locked down in their apartments for weeks in Shanghai and elsewhere is persuading many to bolt for the departure gates as soon as they can. A survey by the German Chamber of Commerce found that nearly 30 per cent of foreign employees had plans to leave China. “Did you see the video of the guy in Shanghai shouting ‘I want to die’?” asked one British teacher based in the city, who declined to be further identified. “Well, that has done the rounds here as well. A lot of people are suffering from mental health issues. It is really hard to be cooped up at home for weeks, especially with young children.”All of this may portend a fundamental shift in how the global economy works. For decades China has been one of the hottest destinations for western multinationals seeking to offshore manufacturing operations or ramp up sales in the world’s biggest emerging market. In 2020 it passed a milestone, overtaking the US as the world’s leading destination for new foreign direct investment, according to UN data. Now a reversal seems to be underway. A tally of greenfield foreign investment projects — which includes new factories and other plans announced by foreign companies — showed the lowest quarterly total in the first quarter of this year since records began in 2003, according to fDi Markets, an FT database.Data collected by Rhodium Group, a consultancy, shows a similar trend. The headline FDI number for EU companies was boosted by one long-planned corporate acquisition, but the value of new greenfield projects slipped to its lowest level in years. “The bloom is coming off the rose,” said Mark Witzke, an analyst at Rhodium, who notes that China’s official FDI figures are inflated by factors such as counting multinationals’ earnings in China as investments.To be sure, some multinationals still do good business in China, but increasingly tales of sudden ruptures capture the headlines. Boeing’s biggest customer in China announced the removal this month of more than 100 of the US manufacturer’s 737 MAX jets from its planned purchases.US sportswear group Nike and Swedish fashion retailer H&M were among brands targeted by Chinese consumer boycotts last year after they made comments about forced labour in Xinjiang, where Chinese authorities run internment camps for Uyghurs and other minority peoples. Friction deriving from the US-China trade war has swelled the number of multinationals shifting manufacturing capacity out of China to Vietnam, Malaysia and other countries in south-east Asia, Latin America and eastern Europe. Added to this are concerns over China’s loyalty to Russia as it inflicts slaughter upon Ukraine, prompting fears that Beijing too will one day become the west’s military adversary. Wuttke says businesses in China are being forced to “seriously consider how to mitigate the risks of any potential deterioration of EU-China relations”.George Magnus, author of Red Flags, a book about China’s vulnerabilities, perceives an inflection point. “I think China’s support for Putin and the government’s zero-Covid response to its own citizens are watershed moments that are forcing people now to review and reconsider consequences and meaning for the business operating environment in China,” he [email protected] More